In a two-party, first-past-the-post system you kinda have an ethical obligation to vote for the lesser evil. It’s just a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Not really, but you’re free to believe that.
The ethical stance to take against 2 evil candidates is to support neither. Supporting the lesser evil makes useful idiots think that they’re winning and therefore stop fighting back.
Any ire you direct towards the people who don’t support evil candidates would be better spent directed towards those who do support evil candidates. i.e. don’t waste your breath arguing with non-voters, dedicate that energy towards the people who keep supporting candidates that don’t represent their interests.
It’s just a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Actually, the people who refuse to support evil candidates are a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Since we’re talking facts, let me lay another one on you. All you people do when you get mad at me for not voting is reinforce my decision to keep doing it. I’m not going to cave to look good in front of ya’ll, I genuinely don’t care what most of you think.
Either run a candidate that supports the working class, or I’m not voting for them.
The ethical stance to take against 2 evil candidates is to support neither.
This may be the ethical thing to do. However, ethical is not always the best.
By not voting the lesser evil, you allowed the more evil to win the elections.
The percentage of non-voting people has no direct impact to the end result. In a perfect democratic world, that non-voting majority would sign the elected government to be more careful with their decisions, as people are loosing trust. In the current state of “democracy”, a fascist just took over and started dismantling the country.
Yes, it’s a loss no matter what. But when you get to decide whether to eat a shit sandwich or a paper sandwich, you either choose to eat the paper sandwich or you’re forced to eat the shit sandwich. Guess you opted for the shit sandwich… enjoy!
Not really, but you’re free to believe that.
The ethical stance to take against 2 evil candidates is to support neither. Supporting the lesser evil makes useful idiots think that they’re winning and therefore stop fighting back.
Any ire you direct towards the people who don’t support evil candidates would be better spent directed towards those who do support evil candidates. i.e. don’t waste your breath arguing with non-voters, dedicate that energy towards the people who keep supporting candidates that don’t represent their interests.
Actually, the people who refuse to support evil candidates are a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Since we’re talking facts, let me lay another one on you. All you people do when you get mad at me for not voting is reinforce my decision to keep doing it. I’m not going to cave to look good in front of ya’ll, I genuinely don’t care what most of you think.
Either run a candidate that supports the working class, or I’m not voting for them.
This may be the ethical thing to do. However, ethical is not always the best.
By not voting the lesser evil, you allowed the more evil to win the elections.
The percentage of non-voting people has no direct impact to the end result. In a perfect democratic world, that non-voting majority would sign the elected government to be more careful with their decisions, as people are loosing trust. In the current state of “democracy”, a fascist just took over and started dismantling the country.
I’ve mentioned before how the problem with the lesser evil is that useful idiots stop fighting.
Since neither side really cares about solving the problems that face us as a species, it’s a loss no matter what.
deleted by creator
Yes, it’s a loss no matter what. But when you get to decide whether to eat a shit sandwich or a paper sandwich, you either choose to eat the paper sandwich or you’re forced to eat the shit sandwich. Guess you opted for the shit sandwich… enjoy!
Hey, I’m glad you guys are upset.
If harris would’ve won, you wouldn’t be mad.
Government is not a sandwich you simpleton